It's somewhat ironic to me that Huckabee was able to trim his figure while governor while not able to do the same to his state budget. Indeed, there could be some funny jokes made using Huckabee, the state budget, and many of the common euphamisms for spending. I'll let your mind work out a few options.

Besides waistlines and state bottom lines, there is a world of difference between Romney and Huckabee. From the AP:

Mitt Romney loves statistics. The former venture capitalist pours over charts and grafs. He analyzes situations and data from every angle. It's little wonder, then, that as he campaigns for president, the Republican sometimes shows his wonkish side.

Huckabee is the opposite:

Mike Huckabee is the easygoing ex-governor of Arkansas who charms his audiences with homespun stories of growing up in a family of modest means while sprinkling in broad policy stances under the themes of patriotism and core values. The former Southern Baptist minister tends not to dwell on the details of policy matters, choosing instead to tug on his audiences' heart strings.

So is this just a contract in style? On the surface it might seem that Romney is wonkish, while Huckabee is a smooth-talker, both with equal substance behind the facade. However, I think that Huckabee's style hides his lack of depth.

Quick, name me the last policy proposal that Huckabee has generated? The fair tax you may say? We can hardly credit Huckabee with the proposal. Besides, does he even know how it would work specifically? Yes, he says it is fairer, flatter, and family friendly, but what does that mean? Who decided it was those things? And how much good will it do for use if it won't ever be passed?

OK, next policy proposal? I'll just wait here patiently...........Still waiting............still waiting. I think you get my point. But you might say that we don't need new ideas, just old ones that get done. That may be, but is Huckabee really the man to get stuff done? Is that his platform: competence?

Huckabee is what I call an issue-candidate. We have several issue-candidates in the race this year. Tancredo is an issue-candidate on immigration. John McCain is an issue-candidate on the war. Mike Huckabee is an issue-candidate on life. Beyond that we get little if anything from him (or any of the others on topics other than their issue).

Mitt Romney, on the otherhand, is a complete candidate. As he's been arguing for months, we need a BROAD coalition of conservatives from three major camps: economic conservatives, foreign policy conservatives, and social conservatives. Mitt Romney would effectuate policies for all three camps. Huckabee would attempt to make a solid, balanced, three-legged stool into a hopping pogo-stick. Much in the same way that Rudy Giuliani would leave the traditional conservative coalition missing key elements, Mike Huckabee would alienate key constituencies. Romney is the only candidate who embraces and would further the interest of all three groups.

Additionally, Romney IS running as a candidate of competence. As his ads routinely reiterate, he's done it in business, at the Olympics, and as Governor of Massachusetts. He can point to specific policies that he enacted, a budget crisis he saved, and a vigorous fight for life and marriage that he led. For all of Huckabee's talk on life, he's never had to fight for it. He hasn't had to stare down the legislature in fighting to keep gay marriage out of his state. Romney has. Romney led.

To be sure, Huckabee is a forceful and engaging personality, but is that all we get? Where's the beef? Where's the substance? I, for one, am not convinced that there is any.

Labels: mike huckabee